That’s what I had to end up doing. I would send FTR’s to do the dirty work and on the non-combat move I would move the rest of the fleet to the recently cleared SZ.
Now riddle me this. If the US navy is in SZ55. 1 JPN SUB is in SZ56 and a 2nd sub in SZ 57.
The FTR’s can fly over enemy held spaces without a problem. So lets say I send 2 FTR’s to SZ 56 and two more to SZ57. The FTR’s clear both SZ’s. on the non-combat move can the US Navy move through one recently cleared SZ (SZ56) into another (SZ57)?
LT
A clear sea zone can always be entered on a non-combat movement phase.
I agree, there’s nothing there to stop you. It’s the same on land with armor. Say you attack Karelia and Archangel from West Russa and capture them both. Then you have a nice fat stack of tanks in Eastern Europe. You can now Non combat move them through Karelia to Archangel.
It wasn’t so much getting there that was an issue I gained ground but then he would replace his subs from stock so if I needed to get a second wave I had to have the navy escort the transports back.
Also if the FTR’s didn’t hit the sub he would have them submerge.
I’m not saying this is the best strategy it was just a simple and fairly inexpensive (as far a navy’s go) way to buy time before you have enemy troops setting up beach heads on your door step.
@LT04:
As most players will do they leave at least one INF unit per teritory
Who are these “most players” of which you speak? This isn’t Risk. Why would you leave infs in each territory unless they’re marching their way to a front where they can do some good.
@LT04:
It wasn’t so much getting there that was an issue I gained ground but then he would replace his subs from stock so if I needed to get a second wave I had to have the navy escort the transports back.
Also if the FTR’s didn’t hit the sub he would have them submerge.
I’m not saying this is the best strategy it was just a simple and fairly inexpensive (as far a navy’s go) way to buy time before you have enemy troops setting up beach heads on your door step.
If subs submerge, you can still move your fleet through or into those zones as if there were no units, so if it’s just subs and you have enough of a fleet to withstand an attack from them, you can plow through at full speed as if they weren’t there by just sending one plane to each territory - they’ll either sink or submerge and you can move your fleet 2 spaces every time. (However you may not want to leave those subs hanging around your supply lines to your main fleet, but that’s another story.)
Who are these “most players” of which you speak? This isn’t Risk. Why would you leave infs in each territory unless they’re marching their way to a front where they can do some good.
Well think about it. How many times have you been Japan and been able to blitz almost all the way to Moscow becuase there is nothing in the way after they staged an Alamo defense.
This is a basic Don Rahe concept.
Not really, I think, if I remember right, he advocated a slowly withdrawing screen.
As far as I knoes, Don never wrote anything recommending 1 inf per territory.
But u knoes, 1 inf per territory makes a lotta sense if u think about all teh lonely ladiez in teh territoriez.
I’ve been assigned to Moscow, imma gonna get my babushka on. o ya baby dont u worry about that soldja boy’s heah now. 8-)
I think leaving one INF per space would also work well in Africa. Most players have a task force sent that is massed into two groups the ARM and every thing slower then the ARM.
Eventually you sprint from one end to the other and move those troops to forward areas since nothing is going on. Then the other players do the same thing.
Africa may not be the best example because it isn’t worth much unless you have the whole continent, but I think you can see the point.
LT
There’s a good reason why you don’t scatter your forces.
Take this simple war game. A soldier fires a light gun, on a flip coin “heads” he hits a target, on a “tails” he misses.
Now let’s say you have 100 guys and I have 100 guys. If I send my 100 guys at your 100 guys and they all shoot, then the outcome’s pretty easy.
But let’s say you have 100 guys, and you take your 100 guys and spread them out in 100 different places. Now, when my 100 guys fire, only one of your guys fires back at a time.
I have overwhelming odds. Every time I fire, I obliterate one of your guys with excellent probability. On the other hand, each time one of your guys fires, he has 1/2 a chance of hitting one of my guys.
What’s this work out to?
You’re left with nothing, and I’m left with 50 guys.
Hey, man, spread your guys out if you want. I’m tellin you that if you CAN avoid it, you probably should.
Pickets are good when you are RETREATING. They suck, and sap your strength when advancing.
STACKS win the game (as a general rule), not lone units.
@ncscswitch:
Pickets are good when you are RETREATING. They suck, and sap your strength when advancing.
STACKS win the game (as a general rule), not lone units.
I disagree that pickets are “good” when you are retreating.
Let’s say you’re Russia, and you have a fat load of German infantry and tanks coming up on you. Next round they are gonna march into territory X, and you can’t stop them.
Do you:
A. Leave an infantry there (1/3 chance of inflicting a 3 IPC casualty on the enemy causing some logistics problems as the Germans try to get more units to the front)?
B. Totally pull out?
I say B. If Germany blitzes, great, they didn’t move in their fat stack, and you blitz right back. Huzzah. If Germany moves in their fat stack, you just saved yourself an infantry. If Germany moves in a few dudes, then you can attack or stay put.
@Bunnies:
Let’s say you’re Russia, and you have a fat load of German infantry and tanks coming up on you. Next round they are gonna march into territory X, and you can’t stop them.
Do you:
A. Leave an infantry there (1/3 chance of inflicting a 3 IPC casualty on the enemy causing some logistics problems as the Germans try to get more units to the front)?
B. Totally pull out?
I say B. If Germany blitzes, great, they didn’t move in their fat stack, and you blitz right back. Huzzah. If Germany moves in their fat stack, you just saved yourself an infantry. If Germany moves in a few dudes, then you can attack or stay put.
100% yes to B if it is a one or two IPC country. But what if it is a three or more country like UKR? Shouldn’t I better leave one INF inside to prevent a single INF walk in?
If enemy will advance the main mass there, then leave it empty, (or if it’s enemy controlled now, blitz it with a tank and back and leave it empty).
If it will be swapped, it depends who has superior airforce. Germans usually leave 1-2-3 inf. Russia leave it empty.
If Allies do KGF with multi-attacker disadvantage (vs Germany, redundant to say), then leave 1-2-3 inf. Germany leave empty (since equal attrition is disadvantageous). Except if wanting to prevent a deeper penetration, then leave a tactical block.
If enemy will advance the main mass there, then leave it empty, (or if it’s enemy controlled now, blitz it with a tank and back and leave it empty).
If it will be swapped, it depends who has superior airforce. Germans usually leave 1-2-3 inf. Russia leave it empty.
If Allies do KGF with multi-attacker disadvantage (vs Germany, redundant to say), then leave 1-2-3 inf. Germany leave empty (since equal attrition is disadvantageous). Except if wanting to prevent a deeper penetration, then leave a tactical block.
(grunts) 'im good post. Wat he said, Croggyl re: 3+ IPC territory.
It doesn’t matter if the territory is 1 IPC or 3 IPC. If you have a fat load of troops that’s gonna walk in, a single infantry is not going to even make the attacker blink. If anything, the attacker is glad that the defender’s splitting forces.
It seems an exception would be if that big fat german stack has enough tanks to open a can o’ whoopass* on your retreating forces (and you’re not in position to return the favor on the remaining tanks) or if they can blitz through the territory to attack a location of strategic importance.
@Bunnies:
(grunts) 'im good post. Wat he said, Croggyl re: 3+ IPC territory.
It doesn’t matter if the territory is 1 IPC or 3 IPC. If you have a fat load of troops that’s gonna walk in, a single infantry is not going to even make the attacker blink. If anything, the attacker is glad that the defender’s splitting forces.
Yep, reasonable, if a fat load of troops walk in and can’t be counterattacked.
I should have read the original post better. :(
What I had in mind was the situation when a country was deadzoned and traded between two factions, for instance UKR from EEU and CAU, and the german attack failed, and the russians survive with one russian INF.
Should I move back that INF to CAU and leave UKR empty or should that INF hold position?
Until now I prefer to let that INF hold the line (2+ IPC) and move out otherwise, but perhaps I have to overthink this approach …
It seems an exception would be if that big fat german stack has enough tanks to open a can o’ whoopass* on your retreating forces (and you’re not in position to return the favor on the remaining tanks) or if they can blitz through the territory to attack a location of strategic importance.
- “World’s toughest job? How about being the guy who has to put the whoop-a** into the can?” - Brad Simanek
Another good post.
What I had in mind was the situation when a country was deadzoned and traded between two factions, for instance UKR from EEU and CAU, and the german attack failed, and the russians survive with one russian INF.
Should I move back that INF to CAU and leave UKR empty or should that INF hold position?
Until now I prefer to let that INF hold the line (2+ IPC) and move out otherwise, but perhaps I have to overthink this approach …
I remember posting a sarcastic rejoinder on another board, or maybe it was this board. I forget. Anyways, what I posted was something like “Oh, what is this round sort of thing that rolls around, this round thing with a little hole in it, how cool is that? I think I will call it a WHEEL.” Which is to say, yeah, you know, if someone’s pointing out the obvious, they don’t have to be all proud and think they thought of something clever themselves. Which is what I want to comment on for the following; a lot of this stuff that follows is stuff that most people already know, but I’m just going to go ahead and point it out for the few that haven’t already seen this tired old mule five million times.
In Axis and Allies Revised, there are economic decisions, logistic decisions, tactical decisions, ad strategic decisions. Which all sounds really impressive, but here’s what I mean. You have to think about how much income you’re pulling in. You have to think about what attacks are possible based on where your forces are. You have to think about how your possible attacks can be used to accomplish what you want to do. Finally, you have to think about all of those things at the same time, and come up with an overall plan. Wow, simple, you know, obvious, right? I knoes.
I mean yeah yeah, sure, everyone does that, even unconsciously (not even subconsciously but unconsciously :wink:) but what does that MEAN in terms of gameplay? (And why am I always beating my favorite dead horse “look at the board, look at the board, look at the board”?)
Let’s take the example above. You can figure out the economic advantage of leaving an infantry there very easily. You can figure out the logistic advantage that you can get from a trade very easily. You can figure out whether leaving one infantry in multiple territories is going to help you accomplish what you want to do. But the big question is not what you WANT to do. Anybody can come up with a short term plan to accomplish what you WANT to do. It’s the long term plan that you have to think about; that is, what you HAVE to do. Your short-term goals are going to contribute to your long-term goals, but if you don’t have long-term goals, you’re in trouble.
For example, let’s say that you’re thinking short term. You think “I’m going to use my German air and tanks, and produce more tanks, and blast the c*** out of the Russians. KEWL.” I mean, okay, maybe you’re not all KEWL or whatever, but that’s a short term plan. You’re not thinking about what your opponents might do to stop you, you’re not thinking about how Japan can help you. If you’re just thinking about what YOU want to do, it’s what I’d call a tactic. Once you start thinking about EVERYTHING, then you have a strategy.
So, you say, you specified that a country was deadzoned and was being traded. Ask yourself if that’s enough to formulate a grand strategy. Of course it’s not. The specified conditions lead to the understanding that it’s a position concerning short-term trade. What other things SHOULD we look at?
Well, we know neither side has enough superiority of ground forces to advance en masse, so they’re standing off. What else do we need? How about the question of who has more air (i.e. who can trade with more surety?) Well, Germany, you say, obviously. But Germany also has to control the Atlantic and Africa with its air, so if Germany moves its air into attack positions deep on its eastern front, it will have to worry about Allied landings. Is that something that Germany can afford? Of course Germany can afford an Allied landing, especially depending on the status of the Allied transport chains in the Atlantic. So what is the current status of the Atlantic and Africa? will Germany probably be willing to trade a weaker position in the Atlantic for a superior position against Moscow, and if Germany is willing to do so, will Germany and Japan combined be too much for Russia to handle?
So just how valuable IS that one infantry on the front?
Generally, I would say that Russia should preserve its infantry. If Germany DOES attack a lone Russian infantry, it can choose to gain attacker advantage by sending 2 infantry 1 fighter for an attack of 5 vs 2; there is a decent chance Germany will kill the Russian infantry at no loss and gain a 2 IPC territory, also a decent chance Germany will kill the Russian infantry at cost of one German infantry and gain a 2 IPC territory. There is some chance that Germany will lose both infantry, but considering the additional 2 IPC to gain, the trade is generally worth it for Germany (unless the logistic problem of getting ground units from Berlin to the eastern front is a big one at the time). So consider that happens if Germany ends up capturing the territory with 2 infantry intact. That means Russia in turn has to commit more units to recapture the territory, and Germany’s trading ability is greater than Russia’s.
So what happens if Russia leaves nothing? If a German tank blitzes, then a Russian tank can blitz right back; German forces move up, Russian forces move up. Germany has economic superiority, but Russia has the other Allies moving in from the Atlantic (assuming KGF). If Germany leaves infantry, then Germany could have left infantry anyways on the trade, so things haven’t changed much.
Conclusion: Germany has superior trading ability. Germany may leave defense forces of 2 infantry or more per territory, particularly in Belorussia and Ukraine early (since UK/US probably can’t drop units into those territories early, unlike Karelia and Archangel). However, Russia should avoid leaving infantry in territories if it can help it.
Note leaving infantry behind is sometimes good re: Tim’s post.
